The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a livingare outnumbered by those who vote for a living.--------------The enemy of my enemy is my friend; the friend of my enemy is, well, he is just a dumbass.

And the only reason why I bring it up is because people have been making a point to bring up Zimmerman's past. Not to mention lying about Zimmerman's past The latest BS going around the internet is that Zimmerman wasn't charged because his father is a retired judge, despite having a record of violence. Who sits at home and makes up this crap?

Someone is pushing an angle that Trayvon was shot in the back of the head. This is done to make the shooting more of an "execution" style shooting, rather than self defense. It begs the question of how does one claim self defense by shooting another in the back of the head? (Answer below > > > )

......

Trayvon could have been shot in the back of the head if Zimmeman was on his back with Trayvon's head an arm's length away from Zimmeman, pummeling George's head with his fists.

Anyway, the other word is that Trayvon was shot in the chest. Either way, it does not matter to my conclusion. Zimmer was getting a royal ass beating when he pulled the trigger.

Logged

The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a livingare outnumbered by those who vote for a living.--------------The enemy of my enemy is my friend; the friend of my enemy is, well, he is just a dumbass.

Oh they have an ethical base all right. Its just the ethical base typical of a five year old child's - or a hunter/gather caveman, if you prefer.

1) Everyone must get a cookie and share ( everyone gets a share of the hunt, everyone get a share on the berry bush we found) 2) No talking mean and include everyone ( Everyone in the tribe must be cared for)

When you are five, there is no such thing as private property - because you never worked for anything. The toys, food, clothes, etc are all provided as a windfall gain to you, hence it makes sense to share them- after all you didn't work to get them. The harsh realities of (modern) life and decisions of adult hood just are unknown to them and beyond their comprehension, and thus they attempt to reduce it to simpler rules that they can understand .

Think about the conversations you have had with liberals. Now think about trying to explain those same things to a none-too-bright, spoiled rotten, 5 year old child, or a caveman transported here from the distant past. Do those conversations you have had with liberals make far more sense now? We tell 5 years to share because we don't want to deal with tantrums and they simply don't have the emotional maturity to deal with the "unfair" aspects of modern civilized life - like that property rights mean that the berries you found "belong" to someone, or that adults make decisions for themselves and don't just obey whatever orders the teacher (chief, government) hand down without question, or dealing with the fact that there are consequences for "bad" decisions.

Liberals have a moral code, and it works for the sort of society they want to set up- a responsibility free kindergarten where everyone "shares", everyone can see the school nurse, and where everyone has the same code of behavior pressed upon them from an authority figure (do, do not, musts and shalls) , and its unicorns and skittles as far as the eye can see - the hard problems are reserved for the authority figure to deal with.

Remember when they complained about Bush- and wanted an "adult in charge" - its because they wanted an adult to TAKE CHARGE of them. If the person in charge says "do what you want. You are on your own. You need to take care of yourselves" they react as if they were abandoned in a department store by their parents, and start crying "I want my mommy!"

You can't reason with them ethically because they are incapable of dealing with morality on an adult level. They need a simple set of rules, predictably enforced and the security of knowing someone will be there to care for them if they need it. Right of Conscience? Freedom? Consequences? That is scary grown-up stuff ( think back - you probably remember feeling that way at times) I just want to play with my toys.

This is why they can't be fixed or reasoned with, and why ultimately we can't cohabit in the same society. The government is a weapon, and when they get a hold of it, they wield it just like any five year old would. They point it at the adults around them and demand candy. They NEED us to play the role a parent would - supplying them with the care they need, because they can't (or won't) supply it themselves. Even when they can provide for themselves, then then act like older siblings, demanding everyone else help them take care of the younger ones, refusing the responsibility to do it themselves ( it wouldn't be fair!) and basically seeing it as their job to boss everyone around. Even then, they still need to know and have the security that Mom and dad will be back by 10 o'clock.

There is just no living with them. Either they need to be forced into isolated communes (orphanages for Adults) or we need to isolate them from us some other way. If off-planet were an option, we would all already be gone. As leaving ourselves isn't an option, that is going to leave us few alternatives other than the obvious.

A prime requisite of being a committed Leftist is a willingness to defend the utterly indefensible at any and every turn, even in the face of contradictory facts. It is a "religious" commitment to an evil ideology that requires one to adhere to lies and proclaim them truths, no matter what.

Some of them you can even see in their eyes and hear in their voice that even they don't believe what is coming out of their mouths as the words pour forth. Yet they say the words, and believe themselves to be in the right for doing so, even as they willfully lie; the lies painted on their face.

As a Christian, I have come to see it as nothing more or less than a manifestation of the spiritual war between powers and principalities, and the Left occupying the biblical role of evil. What would the father of lies have his minions do, if not lie on his behalf?

Quote

Isaiah 5:20Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

In other words, "woe unto liberals". That verse from Isaiah is the dictionary definition of liberalism as practiced and advanced by the committed Left.

And I make no claim to perfection or Christlikeness. I am a fallen sinner. But I do not cling to a philosophy that requires me to lie in order to promote my worldview at all costs.

The battle of Left vs Right is in the process of manifesting as the classic example of good vs evil. It is not as if it has not been known for centuries that it would be just so, sooner or later.

Logged

"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."

A prime requisite of being a committed Leftist is a willingness to defend the utterly indefensible at any and every turn, even in the face of contradictory facts. It is a "religious" commitment to an evil ideology that requires one to adhere to lies and proclaim them truths, no matter what.

"It is obvious, therefore, that in order to be effective a doctrine must not be understood, but has to be believed in. We can be absolutely certain only about things we do not understand. A doctrine that is understood is shorn of its strength. Once we understand a thing, it is as if it had originated in us. . . . The fact that they understand a thing fully impairs its validity and certitude in their eyes." - Eric Hoffer

"all mass movements strive to impose a fact proof screen between the faithful and the realities of the world. And, that that faith becomes the things the fanatic declines to see. He avers how startling it is to realize how much unbelief is necessary to make belief possible, and that faith manifests itself not in moving mountains, but in not seeing mountains move. He say's that in the context of mass movement's faith should not be judged by its profundity, sublimity, or truth but by how thoroughly it insulates the individual from himself and the world as it is."- Eric Hoffer

Oh they have an ethical base all right. Its just the ethical base typical of a five year old child's - or a hunter/gather caveman, if you prefer.

1) Everyone must get a cookie and share ( everyone gets a share of the hunt, everyone get a share on the berry bush we found) 2) No talking mean and include everyone ( Everyone in the tribe must be cared for)

When you are five, there is no such thing as private property - because you never worked for anything. The toys, food, clothes, etc are all provided as a windfall gain to you, hence it makes sense to share them- after all you didn't work to get them. The harsh realities of (modern) life and decisions of adult hood just are unknown to them and beyond their comprehension, and thus they attempt to reduce it to simpler rules that they can understand .

Think about the conversations you have had with liberals. Now think about trying to explain those same things to a none-too-bright, spoiled rotten, 5 year old child, or a caveman transported here from the distant past. Do those conversations you have had with liberals make far more sense now? We tell 5 years to share because we don't want to deal with tantrums and they simply don't have the emotional maturity to deal with the "unfair" aspects of modern civilized life - like that property rights mean that the berries you found "belong" to someone, or that adults make decisions for themselves and don't just obey whatever orders the teacher (chief, government) hand down without question, or dealing with the fact that there are consequences for "bad" decisions.

Liberals have a moral code, and it works for the sort of society they want to set up- a responsibility free kindergarten where everyone "shares", everyone can see the school nurse, and where everyone has the same code of behavior pressed upon them from an authority figure (do, do not, musts and shalls) , and its unicorns and skittles as far as the eye can see - the hard problems are reserved for the authority figure to deal with.

Remember when they complained about Bush- and wanted an "adult in charge" - its because they wanted an adult to TAKE CHARGE of them. If the person in charge says "do what you want. You are on your own. You need to take care of yourselves" they react as if they were abandoned in a department store by their parents, and start crying "I want my mommy!"

You can't reason with them ethically because they are incapable of dealing with morality on an adult level. They need a simple set of rules, predictably enforced and the security of knowing someone will be there to care for them if they need it. Right of Conscience? Freedom? Consequences? That is scary grown-up stuff ( think back - you probably remember feeling that way at times) I just want to play with my toys.

This is why they can't be fixed or reasoned with, and why ultimately we can't cohabit in the same society. The government is a weapon, and when they get a hold of it, they wield it just like any five year old would. They point it at the adults around them and demand candy. They NEED us to play the role a parent would - supplying them with the care they need, because they can't (or won't) supply it themselves. Even when they can provide for themselves, then then act like older siblings, demanding everyone else help them take care of the younger ones, refusing the responsibility to do it themselves ( it wouldn't be fair!) and basically seeing it as their job to boss everyone around. Even then, they still need to know and have the security that Mom and dad will be back by 10 o'clock.

There is just no living with them. Either they need to be forced into isolated communes (orphanages for Adults) or we need to isolate them from us some other way. If off-planet were an option, we would all already be gone. As leaving ourselves isn't an option, that is going to leave us few alternatives other than the obvious.

It sounds as if liberals have some sort of deficiency. The inability to grow intellectually, consider themselves intellectually superior, but revert to an attacking caveman when asked to explain thier beliefs.

Liberalism is an illness.

Logged

I'm not always engulfed in scandals, but when I am, I make sure I blame others.

A religion would have the occasional convert. I have yet to see one happen.

I go with the religion analogy as well.

I've seen converts. I was always apathetic and ignorant into my mid 30s. But my wife was a committed liberal, raised in a union household, committed Democrat. It wasn't just a union household. Her dad was a lifelong member of the electrician's union, moved from being an electrician into union organizing, and ended his career high up the national food chain in the IBEW. She was lock, stock, and barrel.

But she and I both had awakenings, first me, then her, as I shared what I learned.

You won't find anyone more disgusted with the Left than Mrs. IDP. She repudiates everything she was taught about politics and culture growing up, but she didn't get there until her mid 30s.

I can think of many other examples of genuine conversions. Many are a lost cause. But some can be reached, and I have no aversion to changing minds when and where possible. But among the committed Left, it makes no sense to place eggs of hope in that basket.

« Last Edit: March 28, 2012, 10:51:24 AM by IronDioPriest »

Logged

"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."

And, I believe it was either Michelle Malkin or Ann Coulter that made this point: liberalism has all the hallmarks of Baal worship from the Old Testament.

Those hallmarks are pantheism (worshiping creation instead of the creator), child sacrifice, and blatant sexual immorality.

Liberalism has the same aspect - pantheism is environmentalism and placing the welfare of people below the welfare of snail darters, child sacrifice is abortion, sacrificing them on the alter of selfishness and convenience, and blatant sexual immorality is gay marriage, free love, and forcing other people to fund your recreational sex activities by paying for your health care.

At the end of the day, it's the same old lies, told by the same old liar, just with a new wrapper on it.

A religion would have the occasional convert. I have yet to see one happen.

An illness can be fixed. What have you ever seen that happen?

And, people are born into religion all the time. When liberals allow them to be born, and don't murder them in the womb, that is.

If its an "illness", its genetic. In reality, I think they are the "normal" ones - obeying millions of years of evolutionary instinct to form tribes and fall in line - human sheep. Its the individualistic Free Men who are the genetic mutations- and America's frontier allowed them to escape from their tribes and build- but the gene that makes one desire freedom is obviously recessive. "Conservative is the New Gay" as they say in Hollywood. You are born that way, or you are not, and we are easy to weed out if the regime decides that would be beneficial. I am sure it was obvious to any adult that I was an individualist by the age of 5 - even though I tried to play the Liberal part till I was in my late 20s. Then I was exposed to actual arguments for the first time, and started thinking. David Mamet's story is probably more the norm, than an aberration.

Its not a religion.. but I agree religious fervor plays a part.. the cavemen know, either consciously or unconsciously that we have out-evolved them. They know they cannot play and succeed as an individual- they cannot play and win our game - and Hoffer's hypothesis of trying to escape the failed-self I think is valid, but you can't fix them because, genetically, they simply cannot deal with life outside of a tribe.

This is why the French Revolution went the way it did, and the American the opposite. The French had a society dominated by cavemen and the ethics of tribes, and we had a society formed largely by self-selection and dominated by Free Men, and as such, established a government under what was basically a new set of ethics. Now 200 years later, the cavemen among us are chafing under those rules, because they are simply beyond what their brains can comprehend and understand, and they are constantly pushing to "reform" our government back to something they do understand.

To the liberal/caveman mind, individual freedom is not desirable- its terrifying. To the Liberal caveman mind, promises and contracts are meaningless - Might Makes Right is the only rule they understand. To a liberal-caveman mind, wealth is found and not created, and property rights are absurd and meaningless abstractions - stories we tell to justify "hoarding" the wealth we "found" from them. Individual sacrifice, Individual decision making and individual responsibility violate all they feel is moral or right. Your sacrifices are dictated by the tribe - even if it is your first born. You act in concert with the tribe, or you are outcast and have no rights. The tribe has the responsibility for the care of the tribe - no member is ever personally responsible - an evolutionary safety in numbers that is a cardinal rule of the human sheep.

Its not quite Eloi and Morlocks, but it might as well be. H.G. Wells was a Socialist, but he also saw two distinct species. To him, we were the "uncivilized" exploiters of the "found wealth", and to use they are the "uncivilized barbarians" demanding an unearned tribute under threat of force. The point is we are two civilizations, trying to co-exist in the same geographic area, and quite frankly -the cavemen- can't understand co-existence. You are part of the tribe or you are not. They are never "american" - they are "African-American", "Hispanic-American" etc - Always the tribe comes first, and they see the government as a tribal structure - as a family - not a separate institution in which free men or separate tribes can participate. (Getting a liberal to understand Federalism is impossible. There is only one leader in a tribe!)

Peaceful co-existence is impossible, because cavemen won't allow it. We must either fight them off, viciously and with out mercy, or we must submit to being the slaves of the tribe- kept and tolerated for our usefulness as the best "finders of wealth" - but never full members of the tribe - we can't be, because we don't share their values.

The problem comes with classifying the Democratic leadership- the tribal chieftains.. Obviously there are liberals who are successful "finders or wealth" - and these I can only conclude are Free Men like us, but without a moral compass - or who have bought wholeheartedly into the tribal ethical system with religious fervor as their main driver. Regardless of motivations, they manipulate the tribe to gain power and influence for themselves. - like the Pigs of Animal Farm.

Richard Dawkins wrote a book called "The Selfish Gene" (know your enemy) - and in it he talked about "Suckers", "Cheaters" and "Grudgers" - Suckers are the average caveman-Democrat. The Cheaters are those who wish to exploit those cavemen -Free Men who proclaim themselves the chieftains and leaders of the tribes. The grudgers are freemen, born as Suckers who have been cheated and who are never going to allow that to happen again. The cheaters assume that any free-men grudgers they might meet are really cheaters like themselves - and hence all of the projection you see from the left. They simply assume your goal is to form tribes of suckers and get wealth and power from them, because that is what their goal is. Grudgers, however, have different goals, foremost among them to be "left alone" - The "Cheaters" are your only potential converts, and they have good reasons - wealth and power, for not converting. Jesse Jackson comes to mind as an excellent example.

Maybe its a combination of two genes-- one conferring the ability to think producing the cheater. Another gene may confer the desire to be outside the tribe - an individual. That of course implies there is a group of people who can't think, but desire freedom, but maybe there is a genetic dependency that prevents that or makes it very rare. At least, I don't run into them - nor would I expect them to survive long ... .

Its a long way to provide this point I know. I just don't believe you can "fix them" and we have to come to grips with that and decide what we are going to do in that circumstance, because all the options I see are pretty damn unpleasant and undesirable.

Richard Dawkins wrote a book called "The Selfish Gene" (know your enemy) - and in it he talked about "Suckers", "Cheaters" and "Grudgers" - Suckers are the average caveman-Democrat. The Cheaters are those who wish to exploit those cavemen -Free Men who proclaim themselves the chieftains and leaders of the tribes. The grudgers are freemen, born as Suckers who have been cheated and who are never going to allow that to happen again. The cheaters assume that any free-men grudgers they might meet are really cheaters like themselves - and hence all of the projection you see from the left. They simply assume your goal is to form tribes of suckers and get wealth and power from them, because that is what their goal is. Grudgers, however, have different goals, foremost among them to be "left alone" - The "Cheaters" are your only potential converts, and they have good reasons - wealth and power, for not converting. Jesse Jackson comes to mind as an excellent example.

You know, I could have gone my entire life, and I would have never expected to hear Dawkins articulate conservatism as artfully as he did here. I realize you are the one making connections to the modern-day American political landscape, but Dawkins must've just been stumbling into it by accident.

I'm inclined to believe it is a combination. It could be a religion, illness or incurable disease. It is both niave and evil. The trait they do not share is sincerety. My parents were democrats decades ago, but changed thier alligience in the 80's. They were sincere. They changed.

Liberal democrats are incapable of sincerity. Thier minds are scortched, they are reprobates. The names pelosi, reid, gore, obama, clinton, are thier ringleaders. Their minions are the unions. Thier prophets are alinski, wright, jackson, farrakhan (sp) and sharpton. They possess the power and influence to control the weak (aka rick warren). They have many more. So they can pass as religion, as disease, as illness.

But the sincere...they can escape. Searching out the sincere is difficult, but they are there.

Logged

I'm not always engulfed in scandals, but when I am, I make sure I blame others.

What I find funny (not in a Ha Ha kind of way) is that all the race baiters are calling for JUSTICE! Just what is going to happen if the Grand Jury hears the testimony and declares Zimmerman was in the right to defend himself and no charges are filed. Justice would have been served but it's not the justice they want.

"SANFORD (CBSMiami) – New information now contradicts Sanford police chief’s initial claims that there wasn’t enough probable cause to arrest George Zimmerman in the murder of 17-year old Trayvon Martin."

Unsurprisingly, the more facts come out, the less this looks like racism, and the more the lying, race-baiting hacks look like lying, race-baiting hacks.